OT - First Bush ad says something misleading

[Flasch186]

not to say that other ads or press isn't skewed the other way, the first bush ad says Kerry has a Tax plan for 900 Billion or Million (something like that) which isnt true. He has a health care plan that would cost that much. His tax increases would be targeted towards the top 2% of the wealth scale. He would cut or lower taxes on the middle class.

Not an opinion here just wanted to point that out about the ad. Kerry's retort also points this out. I havnt heard either except on the news.

[wig]

All the ads are going to be misleading.

[yabanci]

Not watching any ads is good for your intelligence.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Political ads have become a bunch of finger pointing. I feel that the way to run a campaign is to say what you believe in and stand for, but people seem to want the mudslingers who offer nothing about their own policies just saying what a lowlife the other guy is.

It's funny. This was spoofed in the movie Tunnelvision. Two guys running for mayor start by talking about what they will do and it all goes downhill. Their ads are too funny because they essentially say the exact same thing! (one has an ad where he says he is for our children while he walks through a park full of babies. the other does the same ad, same park, but he is for the elderly (the park is now full of old folk) Eventually their campaigns get so out of hand that neither is elected because one is arraigned for murdering the other.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

I feel that the way to run a campaign is to say what you believe in and stand for, but people seem to want the mudslingers who offer nothing about their own policies just saying what a lowlife the other guy is.

Well, the battle of "I feel that the way to run..." vs. "people seem to want..." is always going to be won by the latter, unfortunately--at least when you're talking about the two major parties.

[Tekneek]

Ok. If you think the top 2% should pay more income taxes, do you know what rate they are currently taxed at? When you say "middle class", what range of household earnings puts you in the "middle class" today? This is something people throw around, but rarely define.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Political ads have become a bunch of finger pointing. I feel that the way to run a campaign is to say what you believe in and stand for, but people seem to want the mudslingers who offer nothing about their own policies just saying what a lowlife the other guy is.

It's funny. This was spoofed in the movie Tunnelvision. Two guys running for mayor start by talking about what they will do and it all goes downhill. Their ads are too funny because they essentially say the exact same thing! (one has an ad where he says he is for our children while he walks through a park full of babies. the other does the same ad, same park, but he is for the elderly (the park is now full of old folk) Eventually their campaigns get so out of hand that neither is elected because one is arraigned for murdering the other.

It's because studies have shown that negative ads work much better than positive ones.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

It's because studies have shown that negative ads work much better than positive ones.

"studies have shown"

People are conditioned now to only have an interest in things of a negative nature.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

"studies have shown"

People are conditioned now to only have an interest in things of a negative nature.

It was always the case. Mud was slung long ago in our politics is a much worse way than it is today. Before America, Parlimentary politics from Britian was equally negative. It's hardly a recent phoenominon. Centuries have shown that democratically elected representatives over a large area of people are easist elected by attacking their opponents.



-Anxiety

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

"studies have shown"

People are conditioned now to only have an interest in things of a negative nature.

Just watch the nightly news.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

His tax increases would be targeted towards the top 2% of the wealth scale. He would cut or lower taxes on the middle class.
.

Has Kerry come out and supported making the Bush tax cuts permanent? Because if he hasn't, he is talking about raising my taxes. I am by no stretch of the imagination in the top 2%, so I would submit that his targetting system needs some fine tuning. This is also the first I have heard about Kerry proposing further tax cuts.

I am not a fan of everything Bush has done. All in all though I'd have to give him a passing grade. I am honestly down to single issue politics on this election. If you are going to take away my tax cut, I am going to vote for the other guy. Once either the tax cuts are made permanent, or Kerry endorses doing so, I will be open to other issues. Now if only I lived in a state where changing my voted mattered.

Oh I must admit that when I saw the topic of this post, I thought to myself "What could President Bush have actually done? Maybe he called Kerry a Crook and a liar?".

[Flasch186]

how can one make tax cuts or anything else PERMANENT. No body knows what is going to happen. Isnt that the reason why Bush left the military stuff out of the budget. He said, (upon questioning) "We cant put it in there because we cant possibly know how much it will cost in the future be it 1million, 5 million, or 50 million." If its good for the goose? If you dont know how can you make anything permanent!! now that would be shortsighted.

[WussGawd]

What people fail to understand is that winning an election isn't always about appealing to people with a positive message. In some instances, it's about getting one's own political base pissed off enough that they actually get to the polls and vote. This is part of the reason that voter turn out in most of the Democratic primaries was historically high this year. Enough Democrats were pissed off at Bush (rightly or wrongly, matters not for purposes of this discussion) to fuel that sort of reaction.

Unfortunately, when mobilizing one's base (and most political analysts are saying there are less undecided voters than usual courtesy of the polarizing effect of Bush) negative ads *do* work better than positive ones. It's the reason Dean got so much attention early on (more than he deserved, probably).

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

how can one make tax cuts or anything else PERMANENT. No body knows what is going to happen. Isnt that the reason why Bush left the military stuff out of the budget. He said, (upon questioning) "We cant put it in there because we cant possibly know how much it will cost in the future be it 1million, 5 million, or 50 million." If its good for the goose? If you dont know how can you make anything permanent!! now that would be shortsighted.

Currently, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to "expire" in a certain period of time and revert to their previous, higher rates. A great many Republicans and some Democrats want to make them "permanent" in the sense that the expiration will not occur and they will become the regular rates until they are changed through the traditional legislative process.

[Flasch186]

I appreciate the clarification....so it would just be a permanent shift of the rates...hmm, good luck to anyone who ever tries to raise the rates. Id rather keep the standard higher and then lower them when we can, on a Temporary basis. Like when we keep a personal budget, better save more when we can then less and then be caught off guard. That is smarter fiscally.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Ok. If you think the top 2% should pay more income taxes, do you know what rate they are currently taxed at? When you say "middle class", what range of household earnings puts you in the "middle class" today? This is something people throw around, but rarely define.

Yeah, I'd like to know, too. The last time a Democrat threw around the word "rich" (the 2000 election I believe it was), my household was included. The threshold was something like $75K/year earnings in a household of 4 based on where the tax increases were coming that were described as for the "rich". I'd put myself into upper-middle-class, but by no means "rich" (especially now that we have a child to spend on).

[Dutch]

These kind of tax debates always raises the question, "If poor people vote for Democrats, and rich people vote for Republicans, why would the Democrats want more rich people? Why would the Republicans want more poor people?"

Just thinking out loud. Carry on!

[Cringer]

They all suck and they all are trying to take away our rights........bunch of bastards trying to regulate speech by passing higher FCC fines, and a Bush puppet controls the FCC, gee who would have thought. I am close to moving, the whole job/house/money/freedom thing kinda keeps me here for now, but damn this crap is pissing me off more and more...........

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I am close to moving, the whole job/house/money/freedom thing kinda keeps me here for now ...

Given your comments about the FCC's decision to finally do it's job properly & enforce their own rules, I'm very disappointed that your current circumstances are preventing you from making a move elsewhere.

Here's hoping your situation will improve, allowing you to resolve those issues & find greener pastures elsewhere.

[Craptacular]

Originally Posted by Cringer

They all suck and they all are trying to take away our rights........bunch of bastards trying to regulate speech by passing higher FCC fines, and a Bush puppet controls the FCC, gee who would have thought.

Michael Powell was originally appointed to the FCC by President Clinton. Bush appointed him to the chairman's post. All five commissioners are appointed by the President, and approved by the Senate. Only three of the five can be from the same political party. The agency actually reports to Congress, not the President.

[Cringer]

and his dad is? and his dad does what? saying he has no loyalties to Bush is just ridiculous to me. Bush also has strong connections to Clear Channel, the company who has decided they know what is best for us all to hear. I could care less if anyone here believes this is all a crock of s**t like i do, i understand most people don't don't care or will just believe what they want to. Not trying to change minds, just venting.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I could care less...

Ok. Start caring less now, please.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Ok. Start caring less now, please.

done

[CamEdwards]

Cringer,

Just so you know, the FCC Commissioner who really started the push for stricter enforcement of existing broadcast standards is Michael Copps, a Democrat.

The vote in Congress to increase fines from$27,500 to $500,000 was 391-22. That's what you call "bipartisan support".

As to the Bush ad, Kerry's healthcare plan would cost $900 billion dollars. Where's the money going to come from if not from new taxes? Even if you repealed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (or let them expire), you'd be about $700,000,000,000 short. That's just for Kerry's healthcare plan. We also have education, military, highways, energy, etc. to take care of. I'd really like for someone to ask Kerry how it is that we'll have all these great new programs and cut the deficit without raising taxes for every American. Considering the top tax rate is now 35%, I'm of the opinion that even the wealthiest Americans don't need to pay any more in taxes.

I'd like to see one of the candidates start talking about what programs will be cut if he's elected or re-elected.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Cringer,

Just so you know, the FCC Commissioner who really started the push for stricter enforcement of existing broadcast standards is Michael Copps, a Democrat.

The vote in Congress to increase fines from$27,500 to $500,000 was 391-22. That's what you call "bipartisan support".

As to the Bush ad, Kerry's healthcare plan would cost $900 billion dollars. Where's the money going to come from if not from new taxes? Even if you repealed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (or let them expire), you'd be about $700,000,000,000 short. That's just for Kerry's healthcare plan. We also have education, military, highways, energy, etc. to take care of. I'd really like for someone to ask Kerry how it is that we'll have all these great new programs and cut the deficit without raising taxes for every American. Considering the top tax rate is now 35%, I'm of the opinion that even the wealthiest Americans don't need to pay any more in taxes.

I'd like to see one of the candidates start talking about what programs will be cut if he's elected or re-elected.

Amen.

[Craptacular]

Originally Posted by Cringer

and his dad is? and his dad does what? saying he has no loyalties to Bush is just ridiculous to me. Bush also has strong connections to Clear Channel, the company who has decided they know what is best for us all to hear. I could care less if anyone here believes this is all a crock of s**t like i do, i understand most people don't don't care or will just believe what they want to. Not trying to change minds, just venting.

Hey I'm not disuputing that Powell has no loyalties to Bush. Do you think the President is going to nominiate someone they don't expect to be loyal to them?? I just wanted to point out that the FCC is not just a bunch of Bush puppets.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

As to the Bush ad, Kerry's healthcare plan would cost $900 billion dollars. Where's the money going to come from if not from new taxes? [...] I'd really like for someone to ask Kerry how it is that we'll have all these great new programs and cut the deficit without raising taxes for every American.

While I'm unaware of whether or not the figure the Bush campaign is citing for Kerry's 'healthcare plan cost' is accurate or not, your comment did remind me that since his administration has requested a $402 billion dollar defense spending budget for the coming year (a figure that doesn't include funds for major military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan) and considering the extra $200 billion that just occupying Iraq will cost us through 2013 (according to the Congressional Budget Office), not to mention the billions in other assorted costs that are going to be incurred--well, it just makes one wonder how in the world the administration is funding all of it, since they're not noted for raising taxes.

[NoMyths]

dola...

That may be the longest sentence I've ever posted on this board.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

well, it just makes one wonder how in the world the administration is funding all of it, since they're not noted for raising taxes.

Borrow and spend. That's what Republicans have been doing since the Reagan years.

[wig]

The greatest part of this whole system is how both sides wonder why so few people vote.

Maybe it's because both parties are a bunch of crooks and liars?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by wig

The greatest part of this whole system is how both sides wonder why so few people vote.

Maybe it's because both parties are a bunch of crooks and liars?

Blasphemy!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

While I'm unaware of whether or not the figure the Bush campaign is citing for Kerry's 'healthcare plan cost' is accurate or not, your comment did remind me that since his administration has requested a $402 billion dollar defense spending budget for the coming year (a figure that doesn't include funds for major military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan) and considering the extra $200 billion that just occupying Iraq will cost us through 2013 (according to the Congressional Budget Office), not to mention the billions in other assorted costs that are going to be incurred--well, it just makes one wonder how in the world the administration is funding all of it, since they're not noted for raising taxes.

Your point is well taken. I think when Cam mentioned the candidates mentioning the programs they were going to cut, he was on this same line of though.

I think it is ridiculous to run up the debt we have. I thought it was ridiculous to give us the huge tax cut when we could have paid down some of the debt. What do I know though. I heard a panel of economists on NPR a few days back sit there and unanamously state that the deficit spending now is a good thing. They said that possibly the debt was a problem that might present itself on the distant horizon. The reason they say it is good is that we have unutilized assets(unemployment) that the spending will help put to use. So it is actually good for the goverment to spend into deficit, until the negatives of the spending outweigh the possitives of the debt. The most critical of them said that that point might be here in two years, and then it would be a problem. Most of the others felt it would be significantly further off. Again this was a panel of economists put together by NPR, that's the FOX News of the left you know, and asked loaded questions by the journalist.

I guess this national debt problem on the horizon point brings up a second thing Kerry might have to do to get my vote. That is act like a responsible adult, and talk about addressing the Social Security problem. It really is a problem. It is not just Republican rhetoric. It needs to be seriously overhauled. Yet the democrats cling to their sacred cow. They can do nothing that adversely effects that prized demographic, and even scrambled about mindlessly when the Republicans played to it with the prescription drug benefit for Medicare.

Both parties have their heads up their asses, it just appears to me that the republicans are doing less to piss me off lately.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Both parties have their heads up their asses, it just appears to me that the republicans are doing less to piss me off lately.

Most people want to appear open minded in these political debates, since without the appearance of open mindedness they have little credibility and their opinions would be dismissed outright by most readers. A common example is the lifetime voter who suddenly switches sides due to some outrage being discussed: "I've voted party X my entire life but the rumored controversial news item in this thread will make me change allegiance without hesitation."

If the Republicans have been doing less to piss you off lately while they have been the party in power for 3+ years then a betting man would probably guess your particular vote was decided awhile ago.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Buddy Grant

Most people want to appear open minded in these political debates, since without the appearance of open mindedness they have little credibility and their opinions would be dismissed outright by most readers. A common example is the lifetime voter who suddenly switches sides due to some outrage being discussed: "I've voted party X my entire life but the rumored controversial news item in this thread will make me change allegiance without hesitation."

If the Republicans have been doing less to piss you off lately while they have been the party in power for 3+ years then a betting man would probably guess your particular vote was decided awhile ago.

Or it could simply mean that the Republicans are doing less to piss him off lately.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Cringer,

Just so you know, the FCC Commissioner who really started the push for stricter enforcement of existing broadcast standards is Michael Copps, a Democrat.

The vote in Congress to increase fines from$27,500 to $500,000 was 391-22. That's what you call "bipartisan support".

I had known this, and i think its very dissapointing. And the vote in the House was even more dissapointing, as many of the votes in support of this bill came from "gentlemen" who had just spent time speaking out against the then turned around and voted for it anyways. So no i don't think the Dems are much better.

[Solecismic]

Is Bubba the Love Sponge more or less offensive than The 700 Club?

I've never listened to either one, but I'd hope supporters of both programs would recognize the rights of the other.

I'm hoping this new crackdown forces some sort of legal response. We have 100,000 lawyers trying to figure out how to extract money from Burger King because people who consume fatburgers non-stop become fat. Surely some of them can be spared to protect the free expression of unpopular speech.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Is Bubba the Love Sponge more or less offensive than The 700 Club?

I've never listened to either one, but I'd hope supporters of both programs would recognize the rights of the other.

I'm hoping this new crackdown forces some sort of legal response. We have 100,000 lawyers trying to figure out how to extract money from Burger King because people who consume fatburgers non-stop become fat. Surely some of them can be spared to protect the free expression of unpopular speech.

Well, if the 700 Club is distributed through over the air broadcasts, then it's subject to the same indecency regulations as Bubba the Love Sponge.

By the way, the recently passed HR 3687 provided a handy guide for broadcasters, both of the Love Thy Neighbor and Love Sponge kind:

"As used in this section, the term `profane', used with respect to language, includes the words `shit', `piss', `fuck', `cunt', `asshole', and the phrases `cock sucker', `mother fucker', and `ass hole', compound use (including hyphenated compounds) of such words and phrases with each other or with other words or phrases, and other grammatical forms of such words and phrases (including verb, adjective, gerund, participle, and infinitive forms).'."

Next time you hear Pat Robertson call someone a "shit-filled piss monkey", feel free to call the FCC

[Cringer]

but some people don't think those words are offensive, and some people may think the constant labeling of democrats and other leftists as anti-american, communist, and the such is just as offensive. I don't think the FCC would give a rats ass if i called up and said i was offended by Micheal Savage, who i think is one of the most vile, offensive men on radio with his constant "hate" talk against just about everyone who is not exactly like him in his thinking.

i agree with Jim, i really hope that someone puts up a strong fight against this. DJ's can't, they don't have the money. Even the one who can, Howard Stern, is not up much for a fight and is ready to just move onto satellite radio once the bill is signed by Bush.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Next time you hear Pat Robertson call someone a "shit-filled piss monkey", feel free to call the FCC

LMAO, what a great mental image you just provided.

[Solecismic]

But, knowing who Pat Robertson is, I choose not to listen to his show. It's not as if the airwaves themselves can be heard. I have to turn on my television and tune it to a specific channel.

If he could somehow manipulate the airwaves into turning on my television and changing the channel, you bet I'd call the FCC. I support the ban on telemarketing to those who have asked to be left alone.


Now, somehow, I find the image of my congressmen discussing shit-filled piss monkeys and whether they should be encouraged a lot more disturbing and undignfied than the thought of Robertson invoking them on his television show.

[NoMyths]

Very interesting article from the New York Times in light of this discussion: An Insult to our Soldiers

Turns out the administration found a way to avoid the costs of war: don't pay our soldiers on time. :P

Full Text:
An Insult to Our Soliders
By Bob Herbert

Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, is chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform. He tells a story about Sgt. Daniel Romero of the Colorado Army National Guard, who was sent to fight in Afghanistan.

In a letter dated March 23, 2002, Sergeant Romero asked a fellow sergeant: "Are they really fixing pay issues [or] are they putting them off until we return? If they are waiting, then what happens to those who (God forbid) don't make it back?"

As Mr. Davis said at a hearing this past January, "Sergeant Romero was killed in action in Afghanistan in April 2002." The congressman added, "I would really like to hear today that his family isn't wasting their time and energy fixing errors in his pay."

As we mobilize troops from around the country and send them off to fight and possibly die in that crucible of terror known as combat, is it too much to ask that they be paid in a timely way?

Researchers from the General Accounting Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, studied the payroll processes of six Army National Guard units that were called up to active duty. What they found wasn't pretty.

There were significant pay problems in all six units. A report released last November said, "Some soldiers did not receive payments for up to six months after mobilization and others still had not received certain payments by the conclusion of our audit work."

This is exactly the kind of thing that servicemen and women, especially those dealing with the heightened anxiety of life in a war zone, do not need. Maj. Kenneth Chavez of the Colorado National Guard told a Congressional committee of the problems faced by the unit he commanded:

"All 62 soldiers encountered pay problems. . . . During extremely limited phone contact, soldiers called home only to find families in chaos because of the inability to pay bills due to erroneous military pay."

These problems are not limited to the National Guard. But one of the reasons the Guard has been especially hard hit is that, in the words of another congressman, Christopher Shays, its payroll system is "old and leaky and antiquated," designed for an era when the members of the Guard were seen as little more than weekend warriors.

That system has been unable to cope with widespread call-ups to extended periods of active duty and deployment to places in which personnel qualify for a variety of special pay and allowances, particularly in combat zones.

The G.A.O. report said, "Four Virginia Special Forces soldiers who were injured in Afghanistan and unable to resume their civilian jobs experienced problems in receiving entitled active duty pay and related health care."

The country is asking for extraordinary — in some cases, supreme — sacrifices from the military, and then failing to meet its own responsibility to provide such basic necessities as pay and health care.

"The military knows that it's really blown it," said Mr. Shays, who heads a subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee. He noted that National Guard and military reserve units were given enhanced roles in the aftermath of the cold war. But the payroll systems (and some other basic functions) were not upgraded accordingly.

"This is a huge problem," he said.

And it is not likely to be solved soon.

"Anything that could be done in the short term is kind of like Band-Aids, things that will hopefully result in fewer errors but will not fix the problem," said Gregory Kutz, who supervised the G.A.O. report.

A lasting solution to the pay problems, he said, will require a completely new system.

Defense Department officials insist they are working simultaneously on short-term fixes and the creation of a brand new system. Patrick Shine, acting director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, told me that a 49-step "plan of action" has been developed in response to the G.A.O. report.

He said he hoped that a completely new payroll system could be unveiled in the spring of 2005.

I asked how confident he was about the deadline. "Well," he said, "I'll be very honest with you. I don't think we're all that different from private companies, seeing sometimes slippages in schedules."

But he was optimistic, he said.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Buddy Grant

Most people want to appear open minded in these political debates, since without the appearance of open mindedness they have little credibility and their opinions would be dismissed outright by most readers. A common example is the lifetime voter who suddenly switches sides due to some outrage being discussed: "I've voted party X my entire life but the rumored controversial news item in this thread will make me change allegiance without hesitation."

If the Republicans have been doing less to piss you off lately while they have been the party in power for 3+ years then a betting man would probably guess your particular vote was decided awhile ago.

George W. Bush was the first Republican I voted for since Ronald Reagan. I technically would have voted for his father in '88, but was inadvertantly and suddenly out of town on election day that year.

I am pissed off by the newly enlarged farm bill, largely supported by Republicans. Clinton squashed it.

I am pissed off by the continual pork barrel appropriations attached to the energy bill...Both parties are guilty here.

I am pissed that the Republican party cowtows to the religious right. I am a member of the religious right(well middle anyway), and it pisses me off that they continually see fit to try and win my vote. John McCain was dead on here.

I am pissed that the Republicans are so tied to the NRA. I own guns, and generally think the most of the ludicrous gun laws that are proposed(they actually pass here in California) are completely misguided and worthless. I also believe that they infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. But I hate the NRA....they are too extremist for me, and they throw their weight around.

I am pissed that it took Bush until just a month or two ago to come out and say that we really need to look into why the intelligence community was apparently so wrong about WMD in Iraq.

I am pissed that Bush still hasn't said that the intelligence failures in Iraq will have an impact on any other preemptive strikes.

I am pissed that Bush's administration would spend all of the time planning ways to get control of Iraq, but seemingly not plan a way to rebuild it. They were so unprepared that they actually fired the guy responsible for it two weeks in. We have people trained in nation building, see Kosovo and Croatia. We know how long it takes, and we know how to do it right. Yet we apparently didn't even ask these people.

I am pissed that the nation we should be building right now is Afghanistan. Saddam is a scum bag, but we could have waited until Afghanistan was finished. Hell look at what we would have learned about the process.

I am pissed at the Democrats because they refuse to deal with reality when it comes to Social Security. It IS Broken.

I am pissed at the rhetoric the Democrats spew about the Prescription health benefit to Medicare. It will help people.....PERIOD.

I am pissed the Democrats are so in bed with the Teachers' Unions. Changes are needed in the education system, and the unions are interested only in maintaining the status quo.

I am pissed the Democrats are so in bed with the Trial Lawyers, then again I am not entirely on board with exempting corporations from punative damages, so this point is a bit of a wash. I'm pissed at everybody.

I am pissed that the Democrats rant and rave about the danger of Conservative judges, while liberal judges legislate from the bench. On this point I am pissed they exagerate and misrepresent the actions of the judges they are bashing. Pickering and the cross burning are one example. The female judge from Texas being Anti abortion was another.

I could go on. I hated Trent Lott, but no one with a mind really thinks he was doing anything other than awkwardly complimenting Strom Thurmond.

I could go on about both parties. The list of things that make them both imcompetent has next to no end.

Bush is far from perfect. I don't agree with all of his party's politics, but I respect the Republicans more now than I do my own Democratic party.

Still think I was trying to build credibility? I am the fucking definition of a moderate. Well ok I lean to the right. I didn't used to. Actually I think the Democrats are moving away from me. I haven't gone anywhere.

[clashcity]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

As to the Bush ad, Kerry's healthcare plan would cost $900 billion dollars. Where's the money going to come from if not from new taxes? Even if you repealed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (or let them expire), you'd be about $700,000,000,000 short. That's just for Kerry's healthcare plan. We also have education, military, highways, energy, etc. to take care of.

It's $900 billion over 10 years...

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

George W. Bush was the first Republican I voted for since Ronald Reagan. I technically would have voted for his father in '88, but was inadvertantly and suddenly out of town on election day that year.

I am pissed off by the newly enlarged farm bill, largely supported by Republicans. Clinton squashed it.

I am pissed off by the continual pork barrel appropriations attached to the energy bill...Both parties are guilty here.

I am pissed that the Republican party cowtows to the religious right. I am a member of the religious right(well middle anyway), and it pisses me off that they continually see fit to try and win my vote. John McCain was dead on here.

I am pissed that the Republicans are so tied to the NRA. I own guns, and generally think the most of the ludicrous gun laws that are proposed(they actually pass here in California) are completely misguided and worthless. I also believe that they infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. But I hate the NRA....they are too extremist for me, and they throw their weight around.

I am pissed that it took Bush until just a month or two ago to come out and say that we really need to look into why the intelligence community was apparently so wrong about WMD in Iraq.

I am pissed that Bush still hasn't said that the intelligence failures in Iraq will have an impact on any other preemptive strikes.

I am pissed that Bush's administration would spend all of the time planning ways to get control of Iraq, but seemingly not plan a way to rebuild it. They were so unprepared that they actually fired the guy responsible for it two weeks in. We have people trained in nation building, see Kosovo and Croatia. We know how long it takes, and we know how to do it right. Yet we apparently didn't even ask these people.

I am pissed that the nation we should be building right now is Afghanistan. Saddam is a scum bag, but we could have waited until Afghanistan was finished. Hell look at what we would have learned about the process.

I am pissed at the Democrats because they refuse to deal with reality when it comes to Social Security. It IS Broken.

I am pissed at the rhetoric the Democrats spew about the Prescription health benefit to Medicare. It will help people.....PERIOD.

I am pissed the Democrats are so in bed with the Teachers' Unions. Changes are needed in the education system, and the unions are interested only in maintaining the status quo.

I am pissed the Democrats are so in bed with the Trial Lawyers, then again I am not entirely on board with exempting corporations from punative damages, so this point is a bit of a wash. I'm pissed at everybody.

I am pissed that the Democrats rant and rave about the danger of Conservative judges, while liberal judges legislate from the bench. On this point I am pissed they exagerate and misrepresent the actions of the judges they are bashing. Pickering and the cross burning are one example. The female judge from Texas being Anti abortion was another.

I could go on. I hated Trent Lott, but no one with a mind really thinks he was doing anything other than awkwardly complimenting Strom Thurmond.

I could go on about both parties. The list of things that make them both imcompetent has next to no end.

Bush is far from perfect. I don't agree with all of his party's politics, but I respect the Republicans more now than I do my own Democratic party.

Still think I was trying to build credibility? I am the fucking definition of a moderate. Well ok I lean to the right. I didn't used to. Actually I think the Democrats are moving away from me. I haven't gone anywhere.

My assumption about concern for credibility was mistaken, you sound pretty disillusioned about the entire process. About leaning to the right, these are right leaning times in the world so that makes some sense, some think that changes like a pendulum depending how far "moderates" are pushed right or left. About being a political moderate specifically - almost everybody wants to be or at least appear to be a political moderate, regardless of their stand on the usual dividing issues, because (as I pointed out in my first post) otherwise they have less credibility in political arguments. It's like appearing open minded or close minded - most people, regardless of what they are really like, consider themselves as being open minded. You sound very pissed off at the Republican party, but you don't seem even remotely politically left - is that your definition of a moderate? I don't care what sides people are on, but I'll pull the BS-o-meter out when people misrepresent themselves.

[wig]

I wish Edwards won the democratic nomination.

Now I have to vote Bush.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Actually I think the Democrats are moving away from me. I haven't gone anywhere.

FWIW, that's sounds exactly like me.

(I still love the occasional surprised look when people find out that the current Bush was the first Republican I had ever voted for in a Presidential race)